Ethics

[eewolf]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

it looks that UberKruX and some others are going to a nightmare , ......

, some people are maniacs , but then only for the "good" side , ...

panag > starts to give banana's to the secret police , call's uber , evacuates the president , and starts to use banana's on anayoe who is not agreeing , ....

this type of revolt is unacceptable , ....

uber > starts to load banana's in the big banana gun , just in case , ...

the AI is not using ethics on us , so , lets teach him for his evil crime , ...

have a nice day

wonderful. here is the first volley of the power dtructure. the word "maniac" has been loosed because someone asked for a code of ethics. i didn't tell you what your code would be. i just said you didn't have one.

thanks for making it more realistic. look deep into this post above and see the roots of terrorism.

[Duddha]

why wait. to use the "game" is just a crutch. everyone playing this game is 21st century (well, most i hope). you are not restricted to the historical record. you can achieve more. which is a better goal: to win? or win with honor?

I don't understand where you're coming from. What do you want? In terms of game play morals don't matter. If we're not role playing than what are we doing? Role playing is the only way to do it because it just doesn't matter.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by civman2000
slavery ...easy workers
I don't like poprushing, but if not used to the extreme it is good
I don't like razing
Pop bombardment is ok, though that should never be top priority in bombarding.
Pro good reputation

Face it, civ is a realpolitik game

actually, i don't have to face that. you have not prooved your case for being practical. if you play the game as you are all used to, what have you done? i am asking the citizens of this "game" if they might want a little more out of it. maybe they will answer "no."

i have read through many of the threads here and there is a lot of great things happening. a lot of thought went into this. great. but there is a lot of patriotic fervor and flag waving for your nation... and no ethical reason for anyone to follow it.

you have answered all of the questions i put to you... practically. not ethically. do the ends justify the means?

here is one to ponder? why do we still answer these questions "practically"? could it be because each new generation settles for practical? especially those who benefit?

[Togas]

Originally posted by eewolf
what is your goal(s)? to win? to win at any cost? you can each do that on your own. should you have larger goals in a game of this size? what about ethical guidelines? you have a constitution but it is long on structure and short on depth of character.

if you achieve a "game win" with no higher standards, what have you achieved?

Fascinating discussion topic ... I just don't see how it really applies.

I suppose if we, the players, were actually doing some sort of immoral acts as a result of this game, then we'd have to seriously consider the consequences of our actions and our desire to win above all else, but this is a game, not unlike a game of Chess or Risk or Monopoly. Nothing unethical is actually going on.

No actual people are being harmed, just like no real pawns are harmed during the playing of Chess. One does not contemplate the ethics of sacrificing one's own units or killing your opponents units to win a game. One only considers how best to win.

This "Democratic" Civ game is really all of us working together or arguing about how to best play a single game within the rules allowed by the game. We are not discussing about how to best run an actual civilization ... no actual atrocities are being commited by anyone.

We're playing to see if we, collectively, can win this game given the currently difficulties present.

I don't think there are many who are interested in role-playing history and trying to be more ethically minded than those who came before us. We're not playing this game as an example to society (no one is watching) of how a "just" civilization runs itself, nor as a challange to see if we can win the game being "just".

We are not attempting to simulate a civilization or create a model civilization. We are all playing one computer game together. Some may get into their roles a bit much, others may write some great fiction about the events of the game, but in the end when the computer is turned off, we carry away no sins from the virtual actions and decisions made.

This is a game, and games are played to win. With good planning and cooperation we all may share in a grand win at the summation of this game.

--Togas

[Panag]

Originally posted by eewolf



wonderful. here is the first volley of the power dtructure. the word "maniac" has been loosed because someone asked for a code of ethics. i didn't tell you what your code would be. i just said you didn't have one.

thanks for making it more realistic. look deep into this post above and see the roots of terrorism.

hi ,

,

look you , if you dont stop with that ethic stuff you shall be banana-ed to death , are we clear , .....

now , we are in an age where the AI does not use your ethics , so why should we start to do so , ....

obviosly you have to be "educated" , so we ought to build those library's soon , ...

there is only one way we can stand against those evil species out there , and that is to absorb them in our culture , so we can educate them , only then shall we be able to uphold a standard of ethics , ....

PEACE TRUE POWER

Uber , if this guy use's the word ethics again , we should put him at the jungle , so he can see for himsalf the horror of those two species we have found so far , ...

have a nice day

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by eewolf

thanks for making it more realistic. look deep into this post above and see the roots of terrorism.

Ouch... don't go there please.

I now have to ask you....

What do you do when a bombardment inadvertantly ends in pop reduction?

What is your stance when you take a town, it auto razes and you get 5 or 6 workers out of it?

Do you even fight aggresive wars?

The game is the context. Without it, ther is nothing. You can argue that whole "adjust the paradime" point..."step outside of the game structure and create alternatives" There is something there but not really enough to change the fact that we are playing defined game with defined rules that will qualify and quantify our sucess without concern for our extracurricular successes.

It is like telling a fundamentalist that you are going to heavan/nirvana/paradise because you are a good, chariatable, honest, compassionate person, but they reject it all because you do not worship the same gods. The fundamentalist is the game, you can not win the game (a chance to go to paradise) outside the the rules (fundamentalist dogma). The game does not care.

I understand that you are saying that we should. We can, and likey will, but this is, at its core, a strategy game and we want to win.

I would love to see a multi democracy Civ III (PTW) game with the machiavellians vs the humanists That woould be a battle royale.

eewolf, I like what you are saying, but to me this is just a game and I want to have fun. I walk around in a sea of ethical and moral dilemmas every single day. I relish the ability to have an outlet to exercise power-over as opposed to power-with. It is refreshing to dispose of 1000s people at my will, enslave nations and nuke the world at whim. why... because it does not really matter. It is about fun.

Mss

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Duddha


I don't understand where you're coming from. What do you want? In terms of game play morals don't matter. If we're not role playing than what are we doing? Role playing is the only way to do it because it just doesn't matter.

you may be just playing a role, but you get to choose your role. i am merely suggesting an expansion of those role possibilities. the "game play" is a small part of this entire "democracy game". you have held elections and put together documents and charters, started parties and coalitions, etc. that goes way beyond pushing pixels around a screen.

it is true that the game is a vital part of this. it provides the canvas on which you will paint. and the canvas creates limitations for the final painting. i merely suggest that you were not using the full range of possibilities.

and i believe that is has more importance than a mere game, also. everyone here should be proud of participating and should use their own judgment in how it is played.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Togas
This is a game, and games are played to win. With good planning and cooperation we all may share in a grand win at the summation of this game.

--Togas

sorry to cut your message short in my reply. it is an excellent post. you have summed up what you see in the game. and others no doubt share your view.

but others may not. my thought is that much more can be brought to the game by applying rules in the "outer" context of the game. that context has been created and it is just as real as the game context. it is, however, more flexible.

can you win a game without slaves? i don't know. (i have won games in regent without slaves). can you win without pop-rushing? don't know... done it in regent.

i am not here to break things. i am actually fascinated by the interaction that is taking place. it is more real than you might think.

[civman2000]

I've won without poprushhing, though never without slaves. But that's not the point. It's just a game.

Actually, i think humanists would beat machiavellians (especially if all of the civs were human-controlled) because the machiavellioans would ruin their reputations...many humanists working together can overthrow a large number of noncooperating machiavellians, but one human-controlled humanist civ can gain nothing by being humanist, though they still might be able to win (for more on this read stuff about some AI experiments done by a guy last name Axelrod in the late 70s/early 80s concerning the prisoners dilemma, especially Douglas Hofstadter's article about it in Metamagical Themas).

[eewolf]

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
Ouch... don't go there please.

to not go there is a recipe for disaster and we become sheep to the slaughter. however, it is off-topic and so i will let it lie here.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
I now have to ask you....

What do you do when a bombardment inadvertantly ends in pop reduction?

inadvertantly? it never ends in civilian deaths if it isn't used. how far apart is "didn't mean to" from "didn't care"?

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed What is your stance when you take a town, it auto razes and you get 5 or 6 workers out of it?

Do you even fight aggresive wars?

i have been many things playing this game myself. i have been blood-thirsty and i have been a meek.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
The game is the context. Without it, ther is nothing. You can argue that whole "adjust the paradime" point..."step outside of the game structure and create alternatives" There is something there but not really enough to change the fact that we are playing defined game with defined rules that will qualify and quantify our sucess without concern for our extracurricular successes.

the game is only one context. you have created the other yourselves. you now flinch when it might make the other more difficult to deal with.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
It is like telling a fundamentalist that you are going to heavan/nirvana/paradise because you are a good, chariatable, honest, compassionate person, but they reject it all because you do not worship the same gods. The fundamentalist is the game, you can not win the game (a chance to go to paradise) outside the the rules (fundamentalist dogma). The game does not care.

i did not expect the game to care. i expect it will do what it already does. but on the thinking end of things, possibilities arise.

Originally posted by ManicStarSeed
eewolf, I like what you are saying, but to me this is just a game and I want to have fun. I walk around in a sea of ethical and moral dilemmas every single day. I relish the ability to have an outlet to exercise power-over as opposed to power-with. It is refreshing to dispose of 1000s people at my will, enslave nations and nuke the world at whim. why... because it does not really matter. It is about fun.

Mss

ah, the best point so far. but, as a democracy game, you invite other peoples ideas into the mix. i am sorry if mine have disturbed you. as you could guess, there is a long line of irritated people in my past (and present). i fully understand wanting to get away from "life" and just get down to it. i do that by playing civ myself. i just think this larger democracy game is more than that.

[civman2000]

SO you're saying we should play a game without ever bombarding/bombing cities??? WE don't have a chance!

[eewolf]

Originally posted by civman2000
It's just a game.

maybe so.

Originally posted by civman2000
Actually, i think humanists would beat machiavellians (especially if all of the civs were human-controlled) because the machiavellioans would ruin their reputations...many humanists working together can overthrow a large number of noncooperating machiavellians, but one human-controlled humanist civ can gain nothing by being humanist, though they still might be able to win (for more on this read stuff about some AI experiments done by a guy last name Axelrod in the late 70s/early 80s concerning the prisoners dilemma, especially Douglas Hofstadter's article about it in Metamagical Themas).

i don't know if humanists can beat machiavellians. but i never look to the final outcome to choose my road.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by civman2000
SO you're saying we should play a game without ever bombarding/bombing cities??? WE don't have a chance!

i have won in regent without bombarding cities. but that is not the point. maybe we have lost the point.

my original point was:

this democracy game has no outer rules of play for ethics. do the people who are playing want ethics to be considered? i think you will have to play harder, think more, plan more if you answer yes. and that should be more fun.

honor before victory, not after.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

,

look you , if you dont stop with that ethic stuff you shall be banana-ed to death , are we clear , .....

is that you, karl rove?

[Inverse Icarus]

panag is my hero

[Kuciwalker]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be about parties etc.

I'll answer your questions though: it is completely ethical to do anything whatsoever to a unit in a relatively unrealistic simulation. IT IS NOT REAL.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by eewolf

what is your goal(s)? to win? to win at any cost? you can each do that on your own.

Yes but in this game because everyone has a say and because parties have developed it makes things harder. We are divided on issues and when playing a game alone you have the only say. Winning is made more difficult because the ideas of one administration are different from the ideas of another.

and panag rules

[eewolf]

Originally posted by skywalker
When I saw the title of this thread I thought it would be about parties etc.

I'll answer your questions though: it is completely ethical to do anything whatsoever to a unit in a relatively unrealistic simulation. IT IS NOT REAL.

none of this is real. it is a simulation, of course. you have put together quite a collection of parties, coalitions, constitutions, declarations, offices, etc. and none of them are real. so ethics are not real and therefore can be just as much a part of the process.

so what reason is there to make some things more real than others? could it be that this one makes the game more difficult, the play different than you are used to. suddenly declaring the game not real is a simplistic out.

i will put it out there again:

the "unreal" entity apolytonia has no ethical guidelines. creating these "unreal" guidelines would be informative, useful, challenging and difficult. all of those things would be quite real.

[Sheik]

Well, why dont you post a poll on whether people would like ethics to play a bigger role in the game.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say ethics weren't real. I said that what you were applying them to wasn't real. I said that nothing in Civ3 could possibly be unethical because it's a game.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Sheik


Yes but in this game because everyone has a say and because parties have developed it makes things harder. We are divided on issues and when playing a game alone you have the only say. Winning is made more difficult because the ideas of one administration are different from the ideas of another.

in the democracy game you have additional disadvantages as you said. but you also have advantages that far outweigh them. you have many people with many ideas on how to play. this gives you the ability to discuss strategy which will always bring about better results than one person alone.

the game is not harder to win, it is easier. you have maybe a hundred human minds working against a known ai.

adding some ethical bounderies, to me, adds another layer of challenge and realism to the "democracy game."

[eewolf]

Originally posted by skywalker
I didn't say ethics weren't real. I said that what you were applying them to wasn't real. I said that nothing in Civ3 could possibly be unethical because it's a game.

you missed my point, i think. i'm saying the ethics are not real. they can just be another part of the whole game.

your insistence that the ethics are real and therefore don't apply is puzzling. everything that exists in the democracy game outside the actual computer game is created and equal. a code of ethics would be as no more different than the constitution that was written. they are guidelines for how to play. and the more real they seem, the better they may be.

[Sheik]

Originally posted by eewolf

you have many people with many ideas on how to play. this gives you the ability to discuss strategy which will always bring about better results than one person alone.

the game is not harder to win, it is easier. you have maybe a hundred human minds working against a known ai.

Not that many minds there really aren't that many active participants. I also don't think Civ 3 is a game with many consequences. This has been discussed before. In Civ 3 you will eventually research every tech (if the game lasts long enough) and will eventually build the things you need. I find that no decision you make in Civ 3 is really that important besides war. Civ 3 is a great game but still lacks that depth where one decision could change everything.

[MrWhereItsAt]

eewolf - this is utterly brilliant! Only rarely have ethical concerns come up in this and the Civ2 Democratic game (has been running a few months now), and as mentioned, both time the environmentalists were laughed at. If this were in the OT forum, I would rate it a 5/5.

You are right in many ways - if we manage to win the game without compromising a code of ethics that we decide on, that makes the achievement enormous - I don't see Civ3 as a game built to be played with such a code in mind. In fact I see playing with a conscience to be a liability. Personally, I have never thought of maintaining a code of morals (my RL ones or a set of ones constructed for the game) in any game (Civ or otherwise), partly 'cause I have not played games as anything this seriously - merely as entertainment. We are however, in this Democracy format, much more deeply involved than ever before, and I certainly hope everyone considers this idea very seriously.

But, that said, I must say I am very doubtful that any morals will be used this game around. This is at it's heart a Democratic game, and such things need to be voted on. We have not done so yet because no-one has proposed it, and quite frankly I am amazed at my (and everyone else's) ability to miss such an important extension of forming Political parties and allegiances - a Bill of Rights, as it were.

However, almost all who post here seem to be of the very warlike, flagwaving nature that you mention, and (perhaps I'm wrong), but I feel the majority of active citizens are of similar mind. I feel that this game is, much like the Civ2 one, to see if we CAN achieve a win in the harsh conditions we have set out into, at any cost necessary. Once this has been proven, I think there will be much more support for your ideas, to throw a whole new layer of involvement and challenge into the game. I also think that, where there may be some confusion, many who have posted here such as Spiffor feel this way too - that your ideas are terrific, but we are in the "testing" game of a series of Democratic games.

All that said, I hope you keep spreading your ideas to ppl, perhaps turn up in the turnchat at one point and suggest we don't take slaves, or if we do, it is only to relocate them to a city to be naturalized as refugees etc etc. Get a Minister to post a poll or two on elements of a code of ethics (which one would be concerned with this?). I may not always vote for your ideas, but I strongly, strongly support you pushing this to everyone.

[Ninot]

Most modern nations, or most remade modern nations, can't claim to have a spotless ethical past. Like the USA used to have legal Slavery.. and other such things.

I agree a code of ethics would be very fun to add, and make the game much more interesting and perhaps fun. But I throw in this twist. What if we did have a code of sorts, but only ammended to it over time. So say we leave pop-rushing as "ethical" untill a certain year.

And then.. what of political ethics? When Communism comes to be founded, will we become automaticaly agresive towards communist nations, because they are pop-rushers? Will we be like the USA of the 60's, pushing our ethics on others?

just some querries. But VERy good ideas here in this thread.

[Sheik]

I think Ninot has a good idea we should shape the ethics to the time and who we are.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by Ninot
Most modern nations, or most remade modern nations, can't claim to have a spotless ethical past. Like the USA used to have legal Slavery.. and other such things.

I agree a code of ethics would be very fun to add, and make the game much more interesting and perhaps fun. But I throw in this twist. What if we did have a code of sorts, but only ammended to it over time. So say we leave pop-rushing as "ethical" untill a certain year.

i agree that anything written, including a code of ethics, should not be written in stone. however, in practice, it would have to be because 6000 years will not transpire during this game. changing your ethics during the game would add very little, since each "atrocity" would be milked as far as it could and then abandoned when not as helpful. that may be too realistic for me. anyway, the idea was to put some constraints on the game and give it a more human twist in the "democracy" part of the game (which is far more fascinating to me than the actual fame).

Originally posted by Ninot
And then.. what of political ethics? When Communism comes to be founded, will we become automaticaly agresive towards communist nations, because they are pop-rushers? Will we be like the USA of the 60's, pushing our ethics on others?

i don't know. i suppose some would feel that way. it would be interesting to find out. also, who knows what else might come up unexpectedly during the game? one thing sparks another... action, reaction.

i am pleased and a little overwhelmed with the response here. it has all been positive, though. a toast to you all.

[Trevman]

This is an incredibly interesting post and I am amazed that people haved argued reasonably over this. You ask if it is better to win or to win with honor. Certainly the latter is better but unfortunately we will have to compromise some honor to win at all. The problem with your ideas is that right now we might not even achieve the lesser goal so an honorable win seems to be ridiculous. I must agree that we must shoot for a win at any cost because the alternative simply is not feasible.

Currently, not waging an unprovoked war will certainly result in our demise as we will be trapped in our unproductive jungle until one of our stronger neighbors becomes strong enough to war on us, which we will not be able to defend against. Maybe it would fun for you to mill around in our tiny jungle until our inevitable honorable demise, but to most others, not.

[eewolf]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
eewolf - this is utterly brilliant! Only rarely have ethical concerns come up in this and the Civ2 Democratic game (has been running a few months now), and as mentioned, both time the environmentalists were laughed at. If this were in the OT forum, I would rate it a 5/5.


...

i realize that i was a little late with this. i don't get around too often at apolyton. i have felt that slavery isn't well realized in the civ game. i have sometimes (not always) created my own ethics code before playing a game just to see what happens. (i never called it an ethics code before seeing this democracy game). i have been absolutely wailed on by the ai while adhering to some of these. damn thing has no scruples. i have also pulled out some wins (or just survived) and they were worth the price of admission.

thanks for replying and its not too late to at least vote on it. i hesitate to participate here because my summer is very busy. i will tune in from time to time because my interest is piqued.

note: my daughter (8 years old) does not like ethics codes in the game either. it gets in the way of her rolling over other civs. she is still upset that the spanish were not included in civ3 because she still holds a grudge against them from her first game of civ2. she can't wait for ptw so she can eviscerate them again.

[Andreiguy]

I would like to go back to a point made previously in this thread...

i have been in situations where my life was in jeopardy. i have not had to make ethical decisions for my survival, though. i like to believe that i could rise above pure survival if the situation arose, as many have over the ages. and you are wrong about instinct. that is an overused tool, an excuse for the masses. critcal thought and ethics combined are more powerful than instinct. it is the ability to see and act beyond instinct that raises us above the natural darwinian world.

You have? Please elaborate. I consider "life in jeopardy" when one is in serious fear that in a moment they might no longer be alive. In this case, I assure you that EVERY human being will turn to instict. You have no choice. It is a natural "darwinian" bodily reaction (we are surprisingly like the animal world in many other ways, as well). When in serious danger, any living thing's first and primary concern is its own survival. There have been some amazing people in history (Gandhi, etc.) who no doubt would unflinchingly give up their lives for their morals. *However* these people are all usually older and very religious. What this entails: they consider their mission in life complete when a higher power, as they believe, ends their life. Or maybe I'm wrong. Whatever...

About the game:
Remember: America gave up slavery later than Russia, England, and just about every other nation on earth.

Whatever can clear the jungle, be it foreign workers, Apolytonian workers, steroid bananas, or Donald Trump, it is free to do so, in my opinion.
Great thread.